[EM] MAM vs Schulze

[Michael Ossipoff]

On Oct 9, 2016 11:01 AM, "Toby Pereira" <tdp201b at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> What do you mean by unnecessarily disregarding a defeat?
>

I discuss that in my most recent reply to Markus.

Michael Ossipoff ________________________________
>> From: Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
>> To: Toby Pereira <tdp201b at yahoo.co.uk>; election-methods at electorama.com
>> Sent: Saturday, 8 October 2016, 23:15
>>
>> Subject: Re: [EM] MAM vs Schulze
>>
>> (Replying farther down)
>> On Oct 6, 2016 2:14 AM, "Toby Pereira" <tdp201b at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > I agree. I don't find it compelling at all. For any deterministic
Condorcet method, I could devise another one where the winner pairwise
beats the winner of that one more often than vice versa. Someone could have
a method they call BEST METHOD. Then all I have to do is say under my new
method, elect the Condorcet winner if there is one. If there isn't, elect a
candidate that pairwise beats the winner using BEST METHOD, if there is one
(pick at random if there's more than one). Otherwise just pick the same
winner as BEST METHOD.
>> (endquote)
>> Sorry, no good.
>> MAM's winner doesn't beat Schulze's winner in that contrived manner.
>> The MAM winner beats the Schulze winner for a simple, obvious reason:
>> MAM doesn't disregard a defeat unnecessarily or without obvious,
compelling justification. Schulze does.
>> Look at the brief, simple, natural & obvious MAM definition that I
posted.
>> Michael Ossipoff
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20161009/3a9f5832/attachment-0001.htm>